DescentBB

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:30 am**

So far, we know this much about the gameplan from the GOP:
1. They moved to squelch live broadcast by members from floor, a core national concern.
2. The Senate approved the outline of a budget that adds $1 trillion per year to the debt, with no real timeframe
3. The Senate revived the idea of using a 125 year old law that can specifically target via wage removal individual government employees
(I guess we now know why they wanted lists of names of folks working on certain projects, huh?, These are career professionals we're talking of here)
4. The Senate schedules hearings for nominees, despite the fact that most have nowhere near completed ethics or background security checks.
5. The Senate schedules multiple nominee hearings on the same day, clearly to dilute the effect upon the news cycle. Moreover they choose the
same day as the initial Presidential news conference.
6. The Pres-Elect still is CLEARLY deflecting from the Intelligence about Russia and the election. No one said a damn thing about voting machines,
7. The Pres-Elect is still clearly, publicly praising a leader which is overwhelmingly believed to have ordered interference in local and national political
and government groups, at a level that makes the Watergate break-ins seem quaint. Whose interests is he swearing to protect next week.

so, the overall game plan seems to be to rush things through while the public is kept distracted, despite no prior nominee ever getting such a free pass on SECURITY or ETHICS issues. Why? The willingness to overlook, forgive or even suggest as 'strong', the actions of a foreign government towards ours, on multiple levels is flat out disgusting. And, we're ready to wholesale remove the career professionals who provide the backbone of the expertise upon which the government makes decisions and indeed functions(oh, I left out letting go foreign envoys with no replacements in place) and you have what to my mind is an indefensible mix of amateur night meets ideological purging that ought to be sobering to any citizen.

This is a rather sorry look into a group that has collectively lost any moral compass, and in so doing,is utterly undeserving of public respect. May the public stay involved, or it's going to be a bumpy ride for the US ahead.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:00 am**

Once again you are projecting results before anything is actually done. Shall we journey back to Obama's start of first term and he and Dems had complete control. You ★■◆● about a 1 trillion debt increase a year by republicans yet your favored group had no problem increasing debt by 12 trillion over 8 years. Keep whining as it just makes you look like a partisan hack.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:29 pm**

woodchip wrote:Once again you are projecting results before anything is actually done.

where? Please fill us in. I just laid out the publicly available schedule for the Senate, the actual votes cast by the Senate, and the Orange Hitler's own public statements and the requests made already, publicly, by his team. Find me the projection, as I tried to avoid anything at all by way of mapping where it is all headed until the very end.

Shall we journey back to Obama's start of first term and he and Dems had complete control. You ★■◆● about a 1 trillion debt increase a year by republicans yet your favored group had no problem increasing debt by 12 trillion over 8 years. Keep whining as it just makes you look like a partisan hack.

First, Trump is not coming in with the stock market in free fall, unemployment screaming towards 10% and a collapsed housing market that REQUIRED deficit spending. Second, you've had it pointed out enough times that half of that deficit spending was the delayed costs of the little unbudgeted adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq.....hardly an Obama decision.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:56 pm**

he even has to LIE about THIS, Woody? This your stable leader for our nation?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:10 pm**

All part of the master plan to de-legitimize Trump.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:17 pm**

woodchip wrote:All part of the master plan to de-legitimize Trump.

who needs a plan as long as the Orange Buffoon has a Twitter account? He delegitimizes hisownself repeatedly every day. Why the hell would he feel the need to lie about dress sales in DC?

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:21 pm**

The Dems need a plan as they are so fractured. Let focus on Trump so we can hide our glaring defects.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:13 pm**

woodchip wrote:The Dems need a plan as they are so fractured. Let focus on Trump so we can hide our glaring defects.

he is the President Elect, and you don't wish us to focus on him? Once again, you utterly reek of hypocrisy, and now, dishonor.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:51 pm**

now, why did he lie about THIS, Woody? Presidential focus? Give us a break.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:16 pm**

Slick, no matter what you say or how you prove things, all the Trumpkins in this country are currently looking at the world through orange-colored glasses, special glasses that make all the hypocrisy and idiocy that Trump constantly does, tweets or says, look like the supreme divine provenience they've been hoping would finally appear after 8 long years. They're on a cocaine high and they're addicted. They're so deluded and spellbound that nothing this man does or says is wrong. You're just doing this:

Which got me thinking. What would it take for the Trumpkins to finally wake up to reality and actually turn on him? Is there anything he could do as president that would want to make them turn against Trump? Anything woodchip, NS?

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:32 pm**

woodchip wrote:The Dems need a plan as they are so fractured. Let focus on Trump so we can hide our glaring defects.

[Removed] ★■◆●ing hell.

Edit: Really TC? Give me one good justification for why we shouldn't be calling this bull★■◆● out for what it is. I'm dead goddamn serious too. Trump's election is beyond proof positive that we need to require some sort of minimum competency in order to vote. Hell, make everyone pass a naturalization exam, that should do just nicely.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:00 pm**

Careful what you wish for...

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:02 pm**

And never a peep when those mindless idiots voted for a guy merely because he was black. Sorry, but all the fake tears are so predictable.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:30 pm**

Spidey wrote:Careful what you wish for...

Trust me, I'm more than comfortable taking the wager.

Seriously though, I've been doing a not-insignificant amount of thinking since November's clusterfuck (and really you could extend that back to the likes of the Brexit debacle), and I've become more and more convinced that embracing some degree of structural meritocracy, above and beyond the idea of civil service exams that term is usually associated with, is absolutely crucial for our society's continued function over the long-term. The Framers themselves somewhat feared the influence of the teeming mob, and they incorporated limited checks against that in our government's basic functions (some of which, like indirect election of senators, have been abolished over the decades), but in the stark light of a drooling nouveau-riche moron slavering over social media, I think their fears have been realized as never before. This interesting article looks at the question in light of the Chinese system, which is founded pretty heavily on meritocracy in certain respects. And while China definitely gets many things very wrong, there are inherent elements of their system that are designed to correct the elements that ours has gotten very wrong.

woodchip wrote:And never a peep when those mindless idiots voted for a guy merely because he was black. Sorry, but all the fake tears are so predictable.

Your tenuous grasp on reality is as farcical as ever. Do tell, how did the college-educated demographic swing in the last few elections?

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:17 pm**

Top Gun wrote:
woodchip wrote:The Dems need a plan as they are so fractured. Let focus on Trump so we can hide our glaring defects.
[Removed] ★■◆●ing hell.

Edit: Really TC? Give me one good justification for why we shouldn't be calling this bull★■◆● out for what it is. I'm dead goddamn serious too. Trump's election is beyond proof positive that we need to require some sort of minimum competency in order to vote. Hell, make everyone pass a naturalization exam, that should do just nicely.

You can make your points all you want and frankly, I agree with you a lot of the time TopGun. I did leave "★■◆●ing hell". But here, you can't get personal or call someone names. Even I got "deleted" a while back when I unintentionally said something disparaging about someone here.

That's the line and I didn't make up the rules.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:18 pm**

dropped this one on a goofy NS thread, but this ought be seen as serious by all Americans:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/ ... index.html

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:21 pm**

getting better by the moment......at this rate, the question by middle of next week will be, do we swear him in and THEN impeach him and charge him with treason, or just move on and swear in Pence and be done with it?
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/t ... ion-233439

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:18 pm**

Okay, forget my two years: I might take the two-month bet.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:15 am**

think Golden Showers and it may be under two weeks.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:30 am**

and it starts:

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:24 am**

Twinkle twinkle little star, your exaggerations go too far.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:32 am**

oh, I'm sure the truth on this one is going to leak out, and eventually be a shower of facts.

Seriously, I never gave a whole lot of thought to Trump being compromised by this low-level mobster type trickery, but more around financial compromise. If, however, these rumors prove to be true, tell me how it projects to the planet if the newly elected Leader of the Free World is the star performer in a video with Russian hookers involving urination on him? Project a strong image? Command respect in the world, among his peers or the snickering public? One can only imagine HOW much dirt there is to trot out, as I suggested during the campaign. Heck, it doesn't concern his fanbois that he's photographed on the balcony in Florida on New Years night with a known Mafia associate. Will this hold up with his backers, or is someone going to finally focus on our national integrity? Say what you want about the image Obama projected, his regard by all measures, around the world is solid. Yes, he was more tenative and cerebral, but no one outside our loony right bought into anything approaching scandal or other dubious behavior or even the crap about weakness. Man, is Trump going to make Obama look good. They'll start working on adding him to Mount Rushmore at this rate.........

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:49 am**

Turns out it is more fake news that the gullible here posted about like it is factual. Sadder still are the libby news organs that promoted it even tho there's not a shred of proof it was true. Turns out to be a made up story:

There is literally no evidence on offer in these memos or from BuzzFeed that any single sentence in these documents is factual or true. What’s more, we know most major news organizations in America had seen them and despite their well-known institutional antipathy toward Trump, had chosen not to publish them or even make reference to them after efforts to substantiate their charges had failed.

BuzzFeed tells us that “the document was prepared for political opponents of Trump by a person who is understood to be a former British intelligence agent.” Indeed, the memos are designed to read as though they were cables sent from the field to the home office. And they should set off the bull detector of every rational person who reads them.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/10/buzzfeeds- ... new-level/

In a story that is getting more surreal by the minute, a post on 4Chan now claims that the infamous "golden showers" scene in the unverified 35-page dossier, allegedly compiled by a British intelligence officer, was a hoax and fabricated by a member of the chatboard as "fanfiction", then sent to Rick Wilson, who proceeded to send it to the CIA, which then put it in their official classified intelligence report on the election.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-1 ... eport-hoax

So like Dan Rather and his fake letters, we now have more fake ★■◆● by liberal operatives that is intended to do one thing...set up the next president forfailure and/or impeachment. The real baboons are those here and the liberal news writers that promote this idiocy and do so with a straight face. You feel good about being taken in?

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:52 am**

zerohedge(Alex Jones) is your fallback for 'truth'

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:52 am**

woodchip wrote:Turns out it is more fake news that the gullible here posted about like it is factual. Sadder still are the libby news organs that promoted it even tho there's not a shred of proof it was true. Turns out to be a made up story:

There is literally no evidence on offer in these memos or from BuzzFeed that any single sentence in these documents is factual or true. What’s more, we know most major news organizations in America had seen them and despite their well-known institutional antipathy toward Trump, had chosen not to publish them or even make reference to them after efforts to substantiate their charges had failed.

BuzzFeed tells us that “the document was prepared for political opponents of Trump by a person who is understood to be a former British intelligence agent.” Indeed, the memos are designed to read as though they were cables sent from the field to the home office. And they should set off the bull detector of every rational person who reads them.
http://nypost.com/2017/01/10/buzzfeeds- ... new-level/

In a story that is getting more surreal by the minute, a post on 4Chan now claims that the infamous "golden showers" scene in the unverified 35-page dossier, allegedly compiled by a British intelligence officer, was a hoax and fabricated by a member of the chatboard as "fanfiction", then sent to Rick Wilson, who proceeded to send it to the CIA, which then put it in their official classified intelligence report on the election.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-1 ... eport-hoax

So like Dan Rather and his fake letters, we now have more fake ★■◆● by liberal operatives that is intended to do one thing...set up the next president forfailure and/or impeachment. The real baboons are those here and the liberal news writers that promote this idiocy and do so with a straight face. You feel good about being taken in?

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:54 am**

callmeslick wrote:zerohedge(Alex Jones) is your fallback for 'truth'

No, I guess in your brain addled state you missed the NY Post link. But what is one to expect from someone trying to distort the truth.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:56 am**

look, I don't really feel the details with the hookers and all are near provably legitimate(although they certainly rise to the threshold that virtually everything you posted about Clinton or Obama over the past years rise to), but I do think there is a considerable body of compromising stuff just waiting to be leverage. If, indeed, the FBI/CIA etc have evidence, let them present it. Current CREDIBLE reports say they plan to do so with the White House security folks this week, along with top secret briefings to selected Senators and Reps. Let it go where it goes, but I find it(and you OUGHT to) disturbing that this wasn't considered by more folks BEFORE the election.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:57 am**

woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:zerohedge(Alex Jones) is your fallback for 'truth'
No, I guess in your brain addled state you missed the NY Post link. But what is one to expect from someone trying to distort the truth.

you threw that in after I responded. Nice try. I suspect you are going to have a fun day, but at least this story explains that odd hair color......

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:58 am**

callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:zerohedge(Alex Jones) is your fallback for 'truth'
No, I guess in your brain addled state you missed the NY Post link. But what is one to expect from someone trying to distort the truth.
you threw that in after I responded. Nice try. I suspect you are going to have a fun day, but at least this story explains that odd hair color......

Time to get your glasses out as the NY Post link was alread in my response and not added in. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad how you try to change reality to cover up for your ignorance.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:02 am**

Shower us with your facts, Woody. Can't wait for the press conference myself!!

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:03 am**

Still twisting and turning I see.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:08 am**

this is twisting and turning, bro:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

let's just take Putin's word for it. Right. How's that dictate, again?

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:13 am**

I really feel bad for you slick. From your link:

The officials said that U.S. intelligence agencies have not corroborated those allegations but believed the sources involved in the reporting were credible enough to warrant inclusion of their claims in the highly classified report on Russian interference in the presidential campaign.

This is sounding more like the intelligence agencys that said Saddam had WMD and then we found out he didn't, yet how much did the liberal press and the Dems try to vilify Bush for believing those reports?

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:15 am**

[removed - personal shot] I stated, rather clearly, that allegations had been made to intel, from a host of sources, and that they presented them. I said nothing about public announcements of corroboration, YET. What do you think they plan on presenting to the Congress and White House by Monday? Guesswork?

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:16 am**

woodchip wrote:IThis is sounding more like the intelligence agencys that said Saddam had WMD and then we found out he didn't, yet how much did the liberal press and the Dems try to vilify Bush for believing those reports?

although this statement is bull★■◆●, could any of you dig up Woody's posts, circa 2002? I'd love to hear his spin of the Iraq matter back then.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:57 am**

callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:IThis is sounding more like the intelligence agencys that said Saddam had WMD and then we found out he didn't, yet how much did the liberal press and the Dems try to vilify Bush for believing those reports?
although this statement is bull★■◆●, could any of you dig up Woody's posts, circa 2002? I'd love to hear his spin of the Iraq matter back then.

you can do a search even tho you were not a member then. You too lazy to do it yourself? Too superior?

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:12 pm**

no, just not that interested. I just find it rather hard to imagine you took anything but the party line on the Yellow Cake transaction fairy tale and the rest.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:16 pm**

If you're not interested, don't ask others to do it.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:19 pm**

woodchip wrote:If you're not interested, don't ask others to do it.

Is it the same ego-driven stuff as Trump exhibits? I just sort of wondered out loud if anyone could dredge that up. It wasn't a request, and to call it such is sort of a stretch if not one of your standard lies. You seem a bit defensive. What DID you take as your position then?

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:19 pm**

woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:IThis is sounding more like the intelligence agencys that said Saddam had WMD and then we found out he didn't, yet how much did the liberal press and the Dems try to vilify Bush for believing those reports?
although this statement is bull★■◆●, could any of you dig up Woody's posts, circa 2002? I'd love to hear his spin of the Iraq matter back then.
you can do a search even tho you were not a member then. You too lazy to do it yourself? Too superior?

When I'm bored sometime, I might just do some searching, even though I wasn't here until 2007.

And I you 2 don't stick to the thread, I'll have to close it.

DescentBB

seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan